Author 




Title 



Imprint 



16—47372-3 GPO 




UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 




CLINICAL STUDIES OF FAILURES 

WITH THE WITMER 

FORMBOARD 



BY 



ADAM PERRY KEPHART 



A THESIS 

PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF- THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN 

PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR 

THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 



PHILADELPHIA 

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC PRESS 

1918 



w:''~-.- ^m- 



UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 



CLINICAL STUDIES OF FAILURES 

WITH THE WITMER 

FORMBOARD 



BY 



ADAM PERRY KEPHART 



A THESIS 

PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN 

PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR 

THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 



PHILADELPHIA 

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC PRESS 

1918 



mmmnmr.m'^-fm ^rsm-. *i»rt>'Ww*<*«ii»w; feed's 



_J[3£ 



1,-BI13I 



■■'" mil 

&i Ua.Wc»Ej 
FEB 25 W 



CLINICAL STUDIES OF FAILURES WITH THE 
WITHER FORMBOARD.i 

By Adam Perry Kephart, A.M., 
University of Pennsylvania. 

Introduction. 

In 1915-16 H. H. Young^ made the first extensive study with 
the Witmer Formboard and used the results from testing 1474 
normal boys and 1375 normal girls of all ages for a preliminary and 
basic standardization of normal children. 

The object of the following investigation was threefold; (1) to 
study the formboard as an educational device; (2) to analyze failures 
so as to determine why a subject fails and what his failure means; and 
(3) to get one who has failed, to do the test with a minimum amount 
of teaching. 

No attempt was made to examine a large number of children. 
The investigation was not interested in the standardization of results 
or in standard procedure, but in learning what difficulties the form- 
board presents, what causes failure, and what failure means in rela- 
tion to diagnosis. Wherever children were tested in a school, the 
request was made that the worst in the room be sent. That is, 
failures were not selected from a miscellaneous number who were 
offered for the test, but were found by examining the youngest and 
most backward pupils in the lowest grades and kindergarten of two 
public schools and a Montessori school, and the most apparently 
backward children who could be found about a small social center. 

Some children who failed, as well as some very young children, 
were given instruction. This is reported under each case. In general, 
failure was determined arbitrarily by the fact that the trial was left 
as finished when one or more blocks were left unplaced or incorrectly 
placed, or that the child received some assistance, or more than the 
standard instructions as given in the method of procedure. 



J Reprinted from The Psychological Clinic, Vol. XI, No. 8, January, 1918. 

(229) 



lip 



230 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. 

Method of Pkocedure. 

In the initial presentation of the formboard to all the children 
but case 1, the standard method of procedure of Young^ was followed 
exactly except in two points: (1) the subjects were selected; (2) they 
were not required to stand. The different places in which they 
were found made it necessary to use the tables and chairs that could 
be obtained. In every case, however, the child was seated so that 
he could reach the blocks without strain or distraction. The light 
was always the best obtainable. In the case of successes, Young's 
standard method was not departed from except in the two points 
mentioned. All three trials were given and the standard data 
collected, with such additions as will be described under the head 
of "data collected." In the case of failure, the method was varied 
to suit the age or to meet the difficulty encountered. The amount 
and kind of assistance and instruction given were standardized and 
graduated. In some cases very little was given. In a few cases 
so much help was given that it amounted to showing the subject 
exactly what to do. The attempt to do exactly the same thing for 
every child was for the purpose of making the results comparable. 
However, in very few cases were two or more children given exactly 
the same amount of instruction. The lists given below consist of 
the instruction given, from the minimum amount, up to the actual 
placing of the blocks for the child. 

The board was laid before the child with all the blocks correctly 
placed, and the child was allowed to see the examiner take them 
out and put them in the tray. The following steps were taken as 
needed, but only as much as needed. In case what was said or done 
did not have any effect the next step was taken. 

1. "Go ahead, or "AU right," or "Ready." 

2. The original instructions were repeated or the examiner 
simply said, "See how quickly (or fast) you can put them back." 

3. If the child picked up a block and began, — tried to place it, 
he was allowed to work until he gave up. 

4. If the child did not begin after the repetition of the instruc- 
tions and sufficient urging and encouragement, the following pro- 
cedure was followed, using only as much of it as was absolutely 
necessary, under the condition that the minimum amount of 
instruction should be given. 

(a) Examiner picked up block 6 and handed it to the child. 
(6) Examiner said, "Place it," or "Put it back." 
(c) If the subject tried to place the block and persisted without 
success indefinitely (beyond ten minutes) and the quaUty of the 



FAILURES WITH THE WITHER FORMBOARD. 231 

performance warranted it, the examiner interfered and the next step 
was taken. 

{d) If the child threw the blocks away or put one in his mouth, 
it was handed to him until it was clearly seen that he would go no 
further; or if he simply quit and refused, the examiner took the 
block, pointed to the recess and handed the block back to the subject. 
This was usually enough. In the case of a few babies and one or 
two others it was necessary to do this. 

(e) If the blocks were placed in a random fashion over the face 
of the board, the trial was called a failure and the teaching began as 
described in the preceding paragraph. If showing how to place 
block 6 was not sufficient, after the examiner was sure the subject 
could place that one, he added 1 and taught the two until there was 
no doubt about the ability to place them. Then 2 was added, then 
4, then 3 and 8 were taught in a similar way; then 7 and 9, 10 and 
11; thus taking the two or three that were confused and teaching 
them together until there was certainty in placing. 

(/) If after correctly placing one or more blocks the child refused 
to go on, he was urged by saying, "Go on, finish it," or "Put the 
rest back," 

{g) If he had trouble with any one block, he was allowed to 
work as long as he would, until it could be called an actual failure. 

Qi) If he failed and gave up on any block, the trial was counted 
a failure. The examiner then corrected all the errors and without 
comment started the next trial. 

{%) If on the third trial the child could not place one or more 
blocks correctly, the examiner said either, "Look at it carefully," or 
"Turn it around." If this had no affect the examiner took the 
particular block and turned it and then handed it back. If it was 
not placed the examiner took the block and placed it, then handed 
it back and said, "Now you put it in." 

0*) If the child, on the third trial, persisted in trying to place 
the block in one place without looking around the examiner said, 
"Look all around." 

There are other details of teaching which were used with indi- 
vidual cases, and described in the case reports. The general method, 
so far as it can be made standard, was as described. 

Data Collected. 

As far as possible the following record was made: Name, sex, 

chronological age, school age, teacher's estimate, whether failure or 

not, diagnosis, rating on five point scale, formboard time, nationality, 

social class, physical characteristics, and qualitative statement. 



232 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. 

In case of failure, further clinical examination was made using 
one or more of the following tests: peg-board, color discrimination, 
design blocks, Witmer cylinders, hearing, vision, memory span, 
Healy completion test, Binet (Terman) scale, reading, writing, 
number work. The data collected from these tests was used in 
making the diagnosis and summation rating. 

Repoets of Cases. 

As far as possible all of the cases are treated aHke, especially in 
the order of presentation of the material. Case 1 is an exception to 
this, as the study was made as a separate investigation, as noted in 
the report. In the case of school children the school rating or 
teacher's estimate was given. By the type of failure is meant the type 
of performance. When it is recorded that the failure type is one of 
"imageability" it means that, judging from the performance, the 
failure is due more to lack of imageabiHty than to any other factor 
although all the other disabOities may be contributing to the failure. 
There is no thought or intention of intimating that failure is due to 
any one lack or disabihty or that an ability can be isolated in function. 
In the rating, in the technical diagnosis, every child is compared with 
others of his own age. The selected cases are reported to illustrate 
the various types of performance and to bring out the abilities which 
make success possible and the disabiUties which make failure possible. 

The two reports selected for presentation are of interest because 
of the possible comparisons and contrasts. The first is a normal one 
year old baby and the second a twelve year old idio-imbecUe. Both 
fail for the same reason, and the second is mentally of the same age 
as the first child when she first succeeded with the formboard. It is 
unfortunate that neither of these can be located on Young's standard- 
ization. The other failures, unless they were below all of Young's, 
were located thus: shortest of Young's successes, in group IV of 
4^ years; shortest of Young's failures, from group I of 43^ years to 
group V of 8^ years. 

Case 1. 
Girl. Diagnosis: Normal. Age: 13 mo. School age: 0. 
Rating: 3.5. Formboard Time: See report. Nationality: Ameri- 
can. Social Class : Professional. Physical Characteristics : Normal. 
Young's Standardization : Shortest of successes: Below all. Shortest 
of failures : Below all. Types of Failure : Lack of understanding and 
persistent concentration of attention. Why Selected: To determine 
how long it would take the baby to teach herself to do the formboard 
test. 



FAILURES WITH THE WITHER FORMBOARD. 233 

This study was made for the purpose of observing the part 
played by the several abilities as they develop in the very young 
child. Margaret had had no experience with the formboard and 
little experience with other blocks. As will be seen in the description 
of the method as applied to this case, the minimum amount of 
instruction was given. For six months the child worked with the 
test until she was successful. With few exceptions the board was 
placed before her on a small table and she sat or stood before it. 
The task could not be given to her daily on account of the occasional 
absence of the examiner. She was allowed to work or play with the 
board only under supervision during the first four months of the 
experiment. During the last two weeks it was placed on a low 
cabinet where she could have it all the time. No one besides the 
investigator was allowed to present the test to her, and she was not 
allowed to see anyone else try it. During the first four months, after 
each presentation, she was permitted to play with the board as long 
as she would. Thirty tests were made during the first four months, 
from May 30th to September 28th. After that she did not see the 
board for a full month. From November 1st to 12th, when complete 
success came, she had' the board to play with as she pleased, but 
without assistance and never with other children. 

Test 1. May 30, 1915. Age 12 mo. 18 da. 

(a) Before showing the formboard all the blocks were placed 
in the tray. It was then put before her and the examiner said, *'Put 
the blocks back." This was repeated twice. She did nothing. 

(6) The circle was picked from the tray and the examiner said, 
'Tut this one in." She took it, looked it over, and handled it as 
she would any other article, then put it in her mouth. The examiner 
insisted, "Put it in." She did not try. 

(c) The examiner placed the circle in its recess, handed it to 
her and said, "Margaret do it." She took the block and put it in 
her mouth. 

(d) Without permitting her to see what he was doing, the 
examiner placed all the blocks in their recesses with the exception of 
the circle. He then put the board before her, handed the circle to 
her and said, "Margaret, put it in." She took the block but did 
nothing with it. The examiner then took it, put it in its recess and 
pointed to it. He then took it out, handed it to her and said, 
"Margaret do it." She quickly put it in. 

(e) With all the blocks in their recesses the examiner took the 
circle, placed it on the board just beside the recess and pushed it in. 



MM 



234 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. 

He then placed it again in the same position and said, "Margaret, 
do it." She quickly did it. 

(/) The examiner placed all the blocks in the tray. Margaret 
picked up the circle and tried it in the diamond recess. She then lost 
interest and tried to take the examiner's pencil and paper. She threw 
the blocks around the room. 

The circle was chosen because it is the simplest of the forms. 
It requires less information, less coordination, than any of the rest, 
and is attractive. In (a) above there were several possibilities. She 
may not have understood what was asked. She most likely did not 
associate any of the blocks with any of the recesses. In (6) she did 
what she needed to do, took the block and examined it and the 
mouth was the proper place to put it. She could not associate it 
with the recess as there is little resemblance at first presentation. 
In (c) one would expect her to follow the lead and at least place the 
block on the board somewhere. But she stiU did not have enough 
information or did not understand what was wanted. There were 
too many recesses. In (d) the number of choices was cut to one but 
she did not understand the command. When the examiner placed 
the block for her the command was explained and interpreted and 
she quickly responded. Trial (e) was not necessary but it served as 
a review of the fact that the block and the recess belonged together. 
Trial (/) showed that she had reached the limit of persistence of 
attention. 

The coordination of hand and eye movements is most important 
in this early feat of coordination. An occasional glance might be 
sufficient to locate and associate the block and its recess, but the 
hand movement would have to be fairly precise to bring success. 
The performance shows that the command and the demonstration 
were necessary because of the small range of observation and dis- 
tribution of attention. Attention is forced by the procedure but the 
period is very short. The first test did not last longer than three 
minutes. 

Test 2. May 31, 1915. Age 12 mo. 19 da. 

(a) With all the blocks in the trough, the board was placed 
before Margaret with the command, "Put the blocks all back." 
She puUed at the board and picked up blocks at random, but always 
picked up the circle first. 

(6) The examiner picked the circle from the tray, handed it to 
her and said, "Put this one in." She took it and looked at it as she 
turned it over and over. 

(c) The examiner then took the circle and said, "See Daddy do 



FAILURES WITH THE WITHER FORMBOARD. 235 

it," and placed it. He then handed it to her and said, "Margaret 
do it." She quickly placed it. 

(d) With all the recesses filled except 6, the board was put 
before her. The circle was given her with the command, "Margaret 
put it in." She did it. 

(e) With all the other blocks in their recesses, the circle was 
placed beside its recess and the command given, "Push it in." She 
did it. 

Very definite progress is seen in this second presentation. The 
amount of teaching is cut down. A decided improvement in analytic 
concentration of attention in a very elementary form is shown by the 
very certain success when the number of choices is increased. 

Test 3. June 1, 1915. Age 12 mo. 20 da. 

(a, c, d) Procedure and result the same as on the first two days. 

(6) The examiner took the block from the tray (all recesses being 
empty) and handed it to her saying, "Margaret put it in." She 
placed it with very little hesitation and without trial and error. She 
then took the cross and tried to put it in the circular recess. 

Here is shown another definite stage of improvement. She 
selected the proper recess from many empty ones. The simplicity of 
the task and the first attempt to place another block are to be 
noted. 

Test 4. June 2, 1915. Age 12 mo. 21 da. 
There was no variation from the third day except that she tried 
to put the circle in a triangular recess. 

Test 5. June 3, 1915. Age 19 mo. 22 da. 
Could not get any response. 

Test 6. June 4, 1915. Age 12 mo. 23 da. 

(a, 6, c) Procedure and success as before. She tried to put the 
circle in the semicircular recess and in several other places, and then 
lost interest. 

(e) She picked up the circle and rolled it across the floor. She 
then tried to put it in the recesses for cross, triangle, and star; took 
the diamond and star, put them on the floor, and then walked away 
with the circle. 

In (a) the attempt to put the circle in other recesses and in 
(6) her attention to other blocks were significant in that she was 
showing interest in other blocks and that her distribution of attention 



MH 



236 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. 

was increasing. The repeated success of (6) shows that the success 
was not accidental. 

Test 7. June 9, 1915. Age 12 mo. 28 da. 

(a) The examiner put all the blocks in the tray and told her to 
put them back. She picked the circle and placed it Avithout trial 
and error. 

(b, d) Procedure and success as before. She then took out a 
few blocks, emptied the board, and carried the semicircle away. 

This was the first time she took a block from the tray and placed 
it; it was also the first time she tried to take the blocks out of the 
recesses, showing that she had some idea of the relations. 

Test 8. June 14, 1915. Age ISmo. 3 da. 

(a) Procedure and success as on the 9th. She tried the ellipse 
in the square and circular recesses and then in its own recess. 

The other trials were omitted. On the 9th she seemed to see 
some of the relations and now she applied this knowledge in correctly 
placing the ellipse after two trial errors. There was little analysis yet, 
but still it was not entirely trial and error, unless the success on the 
third trial was accidental. The procedure was largely confined to 
offering her the board with all the blocks in the tray. 

Test 9. June 15, 1915. Age 13 mo. 4 da. 

(a) Procedure and success as before. 

(c) The examiner handed each of the blocks to her in succession. 
She threw them down at once with the exception of the circle. She 
held it and looked at it for about five seconds and then placed it 
correctly. 

Test 10. June 16, 1915. Age 13 mo. 5 da. 
(a) Procedure and success as before, three times in succession. 
She tried to put the circle in the semi-circular recess but then went to 
playing and throwing the blocks about. 

Test 11. June 18, 1915. Age 13 mo. 7 da. 

(a) She took the circle from the tray and placed it correctly. 

(6) The examiner put the circle back in the tray with the other 
blocks, then took it out, handed it to her and said, "Put it back." 
She did it. 

(c) The examiner placed all the blocks in the recesses without 




FAILURES WITH THE WITHER FORM BOARD. 237 

permitting her to see the operation, handed her the circle and said, 
"Put it back." She did it. 

(d) The examiner repeated trial (a). She played a while and 
lost interest. 

Test 12. June 20, 1915. Age IS mo. 9 da. 
No apparent progress except that she took all the blocks out and 
placed them beside her on the chair. 

Test 13. June 21, 1915. Age 13 mo. 10 da. 
No progress. The time was spent playing with the blocks. 

Test 11^. July 1, 1915. Age 13 mo. 20 da. 
(a) With all the blocks in the tray she picked out and placed 
the circle, then passed out the blocks to the examiner, one by one, 
threw them around the room and tried to put the circle in the square 
and elliptical recesses. When other blocks were handed to her she 
threw them away. 

Test 15. July 4, 1915. Age 13 mo. 24 da. 
No new developments. Trial (a) only was given. 

Test 16. July 10, 1915. Age 13 mo. 29 da. 

(a) With the board empty she took first the circle and then the 
star and placed them correctly without trial error. She then wanted 
to throw the blocks. She sat on the board, turned it over and tried 
to place the blocks on the under side. 

Here we see another definite acquisition. Of her own accord 
she picked the star, an attractive form, and placed it correctly. 
That she tried to place the blocks on the imder side of the board 
indicates improvement in understanding. 

Test 17. July 15, 1915. Age U mo. 3 da. 
Performance of the tenth repeated exactly. 



Test 18. July 28, 1915. Age U mo. 16 da. 
(a) With all the blocks in the tray she took the circle and placed 
it. She then tried it in other recesses, took it out and put it back 
four times in succession. She tried the star in its recess but could not 
make it go down. She then took the other blocks from the tray and 
passed them to the examiner one by one and sat on the board. 



238 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. 

Test 19. July SO, 1915. Age U mo. 18 da. 
(a) She took the circle from the tray, tried it in the semicircular 
and square recesses, then on the cross and then in its own recess. 

Test 20. August 2, 1915. Age U mo. 21 da. 

(a) She took the hexagon (10) and tried it in the diamond (11) 
recess, the semicircle (5) in the ellipse (4) . She then put the ellipse 
on the hexagon and tried to put both in the diamond recess. 

(6) Without permitting her to observe, the examiner put all the 
blocks in their recesses, handed the star to her and said, "Put it back." 
She placed it without error after a Kttle fumbling. 

Test 21. August 10, 1915. Age llf. mo. 29 da. 
This test was a complete failure. She showed no inclination 
to try. 

Test 22. August 11, 1915. Age 14 mo. SO da. 
The examiner presented the board with aU the blocks in their 
recesses. She took out aU and then put the equilateral triangle (9) 
back in its recess. She then tried to put the cross in the circular 
recess and the circle in the cross recess but lost interest and quit. 

Test 2S. August 13, 1915. Age 15 mo. 1 da. 
When all of the blocks were in the tray the examiner handed 
the circle to her and she placed it correctly. He then gave her the 
star and she put it on its recess but not down in it. 

Test 24. August 20, 1915. Age 15 mo. 8 da. 
With all the blocks in the tray she took the circle, placed it, 
took it out again, and tried to put the star in the circular recess. She 
then took the cross and tried it in the circular recess, and then put 
the circle back in its recess. 

Test 25. August 24, 1915. Age 15 mo. 12 da. 
No progress or change to report. 

Test 26. August 25, 1915. Age 15 mo. 13 da. 
(a) She took the circle and placed it, tried it in the recesses for 
semicircle, ellipse, cross, and star, then put it back in its own recess. 
She took the semicircle and star and put them on but not down in 
their own recesses. 



FAILURES WITH THE WITHER FORMBOARD. 239 

(6) With all the blocks but the star and semicircle placed, the 
examiner gave her first the star and then the semicircle saying, "Put 
this one back," She refused and ran away. 

In these recent tests she seemed to think that if the circle would 
fit one recess it should fit all, so she tried it around the board. This 
shows poor imageabiHty, but increased association and understand- 
ing. On the second of August there was indication that she was 
beginning to think of the other blocks in the same way that she did 
of the circle. There was indication of an attempt to use the trial and 
error method in working with other blocks than the circle. On the 
second she placed the star, and on the eleventh the triangle. She 
now reversed the association and tried the other blocks in the circular 
recess. On the thirteenth and twenty-fifth, she definitely connected 
the star and semicircle with their recesses. 

Test 27. September 7, 1915. Age 15 mo. 26 da. 

With aU the blocks in the tray she took the cross, semicircle, and 
circle and tried to place them but failed. This is the first time it was 
certain that she understood when told to take the blocks out and put 
them back, for she repeated the effort when told to do so. In taking 
them out she took them one by one from the board to her chair, and 
when only three were left she turned the board over. When she was 
told to put the blocks back she tried a few but lost interest and quit. 

Here is shown definite interest, increase in understanding, 
increase in distribution of attention, and increased persistence of 
attention. 

Test 28. September 17, 1915. Age 16 mo. 5 da. 
The examiner placed the board before her with all the recesses 
filled and said, "Take the blocks out and put them here" (indicating 
the tray). She put them all there except the cross and the rectangle. 
The examiner then said, "Put them back." She began picking up 
the blocks, placed the circle and cross, and quit. 

Test 29. September 26, 1915. Age 16 mo. U da. 
The examiner placed the board before her as on the 17th. She 
took all the blocks out and placed them in the tray. He then told 
her to put them back. She put all on the board but only the circle 
in its recess. She worked longer than at any previous test and seemed 
to like to take the blocks out and put them back on the board. 



240 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC, 

Test SO. September 28, 1915. Age 16 mo. 16 da. 

With all the blocks in the tray the examiner gave her the circle 
and she placed it. He then took away the circle and gave her the 
cross. She tried to force it into the circular recess. The examiner 
then put the circle in its recess and gave her the cross. She took the 
circle out and again tried to force the cross into the circular recess. 
She then took the semicircle, star, and cross and tried all in the 
circular recess. 

The results so far are about what would be obtained from a 
low grade imbecile on the first trial with the formboard. There 
is about the same amount of interest, persistence, and imageability. 
This is the first time Margaret took all the blocks out and placed them 
all back on the board. This certainly shows increase in understanding 
and in persistent concentration of attention. 

Test 31. November 12, 1915. Age 18 mo. 

During the day it was observed that Margaret had put all the 
blocks back in the correct recesses. It was known that they had 
been scattered about the room before and that no one else had replaced 
them. The examiner immediately placed all the blocks in the tray, 
put the board before Margaret and said, "Margaret, put them all 
back." She worked for nine minutes with many trial errors, and 
placed all without final error. During the nine minutes many things 
distracted her. The coordination was poor, the rate of energy 
discharge was very slow. Most of the nine minutes were spent in 
looking about, handling the blocks, shaking them, and jabbering to 
the examiner, but when she made up her mind to place a block she 
did it relatively quickly. This same condition persisted throughout 
the trials which follow. A large part of the time was spent in plajdng. 
From this time on many unrecorded tests were made. 

On December 25th all were placed in three minutes, on April 
24th, after she had not seen the board for five weeks, they were all 
placed with one trial error in 110 sec. On August 10th the time was 
70 sec, on November 10th three times in succession it was 45 sec, 
and on January 15, 1917, when she was aged 32 months, it was 35 sec. 
Since then the time has not been improved and there is no attempt 
to speed up. From the first success, most of the time was spent in 
playing between placing the blocks. 

Case 15. 
Girl. Diagnosis: Idio-imbecile. Formboard Time: F. 196 — 
F. 436. Age: 12yrs. 4mo. School Age: Kindergarten. Rating: 1,2. 



FAILURES WITH THE WITHER FORMBOARD. 241 

Nationality: Italian. Social Class: Poor shopkeeper. Physical 
Characteristics: Cephalic index, 79.03; head girth, 52.9. Talks 
little more than a child of two. Hard palate high; protruding can- 
ines and wide frog mouth; leering, wolfish appearance, slant eyes, 
and nystagmus in both; extreme knock knees, spraddle legs and 
feet, small ears, and awkward, babyish gait. Very thin. Young's 
Standard: Shortest of successes: below all. Shortest of failures: 
below all. Type of Failure: Lack of understanding and persistent 
concentration of attention. 

Tests. 
Formhoard. 

I. Blocks were fingered in monkey fashion. After the directions 
were repeated she placed 3, 6 and 8 and put the rest on top of the 
board. 

II. She again put the blocks on top at random. When 1 was 
given to her she placed it over recess 2, but corrected it when the 
examiner said, "No." Nos. 2 and 4 were treated similarly. All of 
the blocks were then placed with many trial errors, 7 would not 
have been placed had not an observer said, "She has it backward." 
Time approximately eight minutes, five spent in placing 7. 

III. Repetition of trial II. Time 436 sec. 

Further examination had to be made a week later when the 
formboard was given again. 

Formhoard {second test). 

I. A better performance, but she still persisted in removing 
correctly placed blocks. She compared the blocks by fitting them 
together. There was improvement in distribution of attention. 
No assistance except urging was given. Time 523 sec. 

II. Improvement in selecting and rejecting and in memory of 
the simpler forms but no persistence. Time 116 sec. 

III. Only three trial errors, improved interest evidenced by 
singing and more rapid work. Time 99 sec. 

Peg-hoard. 

Random pegging with very poor coordination. Qualitatively 
a two year old performance. Time 148 sec. 

Design Blocks. 

Failed on all but a row of red blocks. Could match colors if 
attention was held. 



WKmsssfi 



242 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. 

Witmer Cylinders. 

I. Random placing with poor coordination. The examiner 
placed all but three, one of which she placed correctly. The other 
two were interchanged. She was then told which were right and she 
corrected the two. In the same way the four largest were placed 
with two trial errors, four scattered with no errors, then five with 
four errors, then five long cylinders with four trial errors, then five 
long ones with small diameters with two trial errors. All were now 
taken out and she began again. Her attention wandered. She said 
"bang" as she placed each one. When told to correct two that were 
wrong she took them out. The examiner then removed five that 
were wrong. After very much assistance all were placed in 499 sec. 

II. Trial I was repeated. She tried to force large into small, 
and left small cyhnders in large recesses. Occasionally she leaned 
back and laughed and hit the cylinder a hard blow. Time 452 sec. 

Binet {Terman revision). 

Mental age score, three years. Intelligence quotient, 24.3. 

This girl is obviously an idio-imbecile. She plays about with 
other children, is imposed upon and cries at nothing, hke a two year 
old child . Her speech is very incoherent. She has been in the 
kindergarten all her school life and she is improving a little. Her 
brother of nine years, in the fourth grade, has the appearance of a 
mongolian and some of the marks of the high grade imbecile. The 
girl is always dirty, scantily dressed, and exhibits herself anywhere. 
On the five point scale the following ratings are given: energy 2, 
rate of energy discharge 2, resistence to fatigue 2, health 2, control 1.5, 
coordination 1.5, initiative 2, complexity of responsiveness 1.3, 
vivacity 4, analjiiic concentration 1.3, persistence 1.5, distribution of 
attention 1.3, imageabihty 1.2, understanding 1.3, memory 1.4, and 
intelligence 1.2. This is a good illustration of the fact that control, 
coordination, and general vitality may be very low, but may not 
produce failure without lack in some other respect. 

General Analysis. 
It will be seen from table III that there is little, if any, relation 
between age, formboard time, diagnostic rating, and diagnosis (in 
cases of this investigation) except the direct relation between sum- 
mation rating and diagnosis. Table II shows the general tendency 
for time to decrease with age for 188 subjects. A summation of aU 
available cases is not possible on account of the incomplete record of 
formboard time for the failures who came to the Clinic. Table III is 




FAILURES WITH THE WITHER FORMBOARD. 243 

given to afford a short summary of these studies rather than to 
attempt to prove anything. 

H. H. Young had a total of 182 failures out of 3031 cases exam 
ined, or 6 per cent; 75 out of 1549 boys or 4.2 per cent, and 107 out 
of 1422 girls or 7.2 per cent. Of the 122 failures, 72 per cent occurred 
on the first trial only, 11 per cent on the first and second trials, 3 pei 
cent on the third trial, and two children failed on all three trials. In 
tliis investigation all but one failed on the first trial. In some cases 
there was only one trial, as the strain of teaching wore the child out. 
Ten failed on the first trial only, none on the second only, none on 
the third only, six on both first and second, one on the first and third, 
and seven on all three trials. 

Although this investigation was not undertaken to find the 
failure level for the formboard, there are many things in the results 
which make it possible to locate that level approximately. In 
Young's investigation, in which he tested all children who were sent 
to him, taking every child in a school room, he found that out of 
fifty children under five years of age, twenty-four succeeded on the 
first trial and twenty-six failed. It must be remembered that he 
set a time limit of three minutes and called all failures who did not 
succeed in that time. In the present investigation, where the subjects 
were selected with the purpose of finding failures as soon as possible, 
of the thirty subjects under five years of age, sixteen failed and 
fourteen succeeded on the first trial. In Young's investigation, of 
the one hundred subjects over five years of age but less than six, 
seventy-eight succeeded on the first trial and only twenty-two failed. 
In the present investigation, of the twelve subjects over five but less 
than six, eight succeeded and four failed. These twelve must be 
remembered also as selected for failure. All of this indicates that the 
majority of children over five years of age may be expected to suc- 
ceed with the formboard on the first trial. The fact that the subjects 
of this investigation were selected simply emphasizes this point, 
since in spite of the selection, twice as many succeeded in the sixth 
year. 

Of the 1400 cases in the Psychological Clinic of the University 
of Pennsylvania who were examined with the Witmer formboard 
SLQce it has been in use, 137 failed on one or more trials. This is 
roughly 10 per cent. Tables IV and V present an analysis of these 
failures. Of the eighteen diagnosed as normal, sixteen were under 
five years of age. Of the one hundred diagnosed as definitely feeble- 
minded, 69 per cent were over five years of age. Young tested very 
few children under five years of age, the median of his failures coming 
at 6.75 years. However, 80 per cent of his failures were between 



244 



THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. 

Table I. — Young's Shortest Trials. 



Age 



4.25 

4.75 

5.25 

5.75 

6.25 

6.75 

7.25 

7.75 

8.25 

8.75 

9.25 

9.75 

10.25 

10.75 

11.25 

11.75 

12.25 

12.75 

13.50 

14.50 

15.50 



No. 



16 

34 
44 
101 
106 
145 
143 
145 
140 
138 
161 
123 
133 
142 
148 
179 
163 
281 
172 
75 



34-36 
22-36 
20-26 
16-25 
20-26 
17-23 
18-22 
15-20 
12-19 
13-17 
12-17 
12-16 
11-15 
10-15 
11-14 
10-14 
10-13 
9-13 
8-12 
8-12 
7-12 



III 



42 
35-37 
27-31 
26-28 
27-29 
24-27 
23-25 
21-23 
20-22 
18-20 
18-19 
17-18 
16-17 
16-17 
15-16 
15-16 
14-15 
14-15 
13-14 
13-14 
13 



50 
39-42 
32-36 
29-32 
30-32 
28-31 
26-28 
24-26 
23-24 
21-22 
20-21 
19-20 
18-19 
18-19 
17-18 
17-18 
16-17 
16-17 
15-16 
15-16 
14-15 



IV 



53 
43-47 
37-44 
33-38 
33-38 
32-37 
29-31 
27-30 
25-27 
23-25 
22-24 
21-22 
20-22 
20-22 
19-21 
19-21 
18-19 
18-19 
17-18 
17-18 
16-17 



60 

53-103 
46- 67 
39- 92 
39- 76 
39- 86 
32- 56 
31- 51 
28- 42 
26- 38 
25- 40 
23- 54 
23- 30 
23- 38 
22- 27 
22- 33 
20- 30 
20- 29 
19- 30 
19- 24 
18- 27 



Table II. — Young's Shortest Trials for Failures. 



Age 


No. 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


4.25 


10 


29-49 


53-60 


65-68 


72-75 


118 


4.75 


16 


28-35 


42-45 


50-61 


78-92 


105-119 


5.25 


18 


26-28 


38-41 


45-50 


56-61 


68-202 


5.75 


14 


26-27 


36-39 


49-50 


54-69 


73-110 


6.25 


23 


24-29 


30-34 


34-37 


41-45 


48-103 


6.75 


22 


22-27 


29-31 


33-38 


40-57 


58-102 


7.25 


18 


20-25 


25-30 


32-34 


36-40 


41- 53 


7.75 


16 


16-20 


25-27 


30-34 


35-38 


49-131 


8.25 


10 


18-21 


22-23 


27-28 


29-30 


37- 40 


8.75 


6 


23-24 


32 


36 


51 


52 


9.25 


5 


21 


22 


22 


25 


25 


9.75 


3 


17 




22 


23 




10.25 


3 


20 




23 




43 


10.75 


2 


19 




32 






11.25 




21 










11.75 




19 










12.25 




20 










12.75 




28 










13.50 




16 










14.50 




13 










15.50 


3 


13 




20 




43 



'"«MH 




,|a,g||,|||||ay,^,iyga^_ 



Table III.— Summary of Cases Reported. 



Age 


Case No. 


Diagnoais 


Rating 


F. B. Time 


2.25 


4 


N. 


3 


501 


2.75 


3 


N. 


4 


124 


3.25 


14 


N. 


3 


183 


3.75 


7 


N. 


3.3.3 


59 


3.75 


10 


N. 


3 


345 


4.25 


16 


N. 


3.3.3 


276 


4.25 


13 


N. 


3 


44 


4.25 


23 


N. 


3.2 


60 


4.25 


24 


D. 


2.4 


94 


4.25 


17 


N. 


3.3.3 


108 


4.25 


11 


N. 


3 


420 


4.25 


19 


N. 


3.3 


50 


4.75 


22 


N. 


3.3.1 


263 


4.75 


18 


N. 


3.3 


48 


4.75 


25 


D. 


2.3 


111 


4.75 


20 


D. 


3.2 


89 


5.25 


21 


M. G. I. 


1.4 


41 


5.25 


9 


N. 


3 


105 


5.75 


8 


N. 


3 


88 


5.75 


12 


M. G. I. 


1.4 


42 


6.25 


6 


N. 


3.1 


63 


6.25 


5 


D. 


2.3 


75 


10.75 


2 


L. G. I. 


1.3 


59 


12.25 


15 


I. I. 


1.2 


436 



N,=NormaI. D.=Doubtfu]. L.G.I.=Low Grade Imbecile. I. I.=Idio-imbecile. M.G.I.=Middle Grade Imbecik. 

Table IV. — Distribution According to Diagnosis. Clinic Cases. 





All 


Under 5 


Over 6 


Number 


Per cent 


Number 


Per cent 


Number 


Per cent 


Normal 

Deferred 

H.G.I 

M.G.I 

L. G. I 

I. I 


18 

19 

4 

11 

24 

51 

8 

2 


13.1 

13.9 

2.9 

8.0 

17.6 

37.8 

5.8 

1.5 


16 

11 

2 

5 
6 
2 


38.1 

26.2 

4.8 

11.9 

14.2 
4.8 


2 

8 

2 

11 

19 

45 

6 

2 


2.1 

8.5 

2.1 

11.6 

20.0 

47.3 

6.4 

2.1 


S. I 


Idiot 





Table V. — Time Types of Failure. 



Diagnosis 


Complete 


Under 60 Sec. 


Over 180 Sec. 


Clinic Cases : 

Normal 


1 

7 
1 

10 

23 

2 

1 


5 

2 

2 

4 

92 


3 
1 
1 

2 
2 
6 

11 


Deferred 


H.G.I 

MGI 


L. G. I 


L.I 


Idiot 


Young's. No Diagnosis 





246 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. 

the ages of four and eight. In the examination of 3037 subjects 
Young found 188 failures, or 6.2 per cent. The difference between 
this and the 10 per cent of the Clinic cases is due in part to the fact 
that those who come to the Clinic are already selected or suspected 
of deficiency, but also in part to the fact that the age groups are not 
at all parallel. Young's failures under five years of age are only .8 
per cent of the total number examined, while the Clinic failures under 
five years of age are 3 per cent of the total number examined. Of all 
the failures available the mode comes at 4.75 years, the median at 
6.75. However, Young had more under four years old, 26 per cent 
are under five years of age and 74 per cent under eight years. 

Of the 19 clinic cases in which the diagnosis was deferred, which 
means that these cases are at least doubtful, 8 were over five years of 
age. The experience of the Clinic is that the tendency is for the 
diagnosis to go down rather than up in the cases of deferred diagnosis, 
so that the probability is that at least 75 per cent of these 19 cases 
are feebleminded, especially those over five years of age. 

As table IV shows, 69.1 per cent of the Clinic failures are over 
five years of age, 13.1 per cent are definitely normal, 73 per cent are 
definitely feebleminded, and 13.9 per cent doubtful, making a prob- 
ability of 86.9 per cent feebleminded. Of the feebleminded 44.5 per 
cent are lower than low grade imbecile, and 28 per cent are in the im- 
becile group. There is also a probability of 27 per cent normal. Of 
these 64.3 per cent are under five years of age. Of the 73 per cent defi- 
nitely feebleminded 85 per cent are over five years of age. Of the 86.9 
per cent probably feebleminded 78 per cent are over five years of age. 
Of the 16 per cent definitely normal 70 per cent are under five years 
of age. Of the 95 subjects over five years of age who failed, 89.5 per 
cent are definitely feebleminded and there is a probability of 97.9 per 
cent. The number of cases is smaU but the indication of the tendency 
is supported by the study of the cases which follow. It is very 
likely that 98 per cent of those over five years of age, who are brought 
to the Clinic already under suspicion, who fail with the formboard, 
are feebleminded, and that 89 per cent are definitely so. However, it 
must be remembered that these are selected cases, already suspected 
of feeblemindedness. Yet the probability is that the examination of 
a larger number of apparently normal children over five years of age 
would support this to the extent of making the probability greater. 

A treatment of the time results of these failures at the Psycho- 
logical Clinic is impossible, as in many cases the record indicates no 
more than failure. Table V shows the approximate number of 
complete failures, those who failed imder one minute, and those who 
failed after working more than three minutes. Of course all of the 



FAILURES WITH THE WITMER FORMBOARD. 247 

137 cases could not be used in this classification. Only those where 
there is good evidence of time record and of complete failure were 
used. However, the tendencies are evident from this incomplete 
table. Of the 137 cases (so far as can be seen) only 15 persisted more 
than three minutes on the first trial; only 13 worked less than a 
minute and quit; while 51 failed more or less completely, making it 
seem not worth while to record the time. Of those considered com- 
plete failures 84 per cent are definitely in the feebleminded class with 
a probability of 98 per cent. Of the failures in one minute or less 
more than 50 per cent are probably feebleminded. In the three 
minute class 27 per cent are probably normal, and 20 per cent 
definitely so. 

The futility of comparisons based upon the time records of 
failures with the formboard is made obvious by a consideration of the 
difficulties encountered by the different subjects. If the formboard 
presented the same difficulties for each, the time would mean more 
as a measure of general abihty. As it is, the time is a measure only of 
formboard ability. Young takes the shortest record of three trials 
as the index of formboard ability. This is challenged. It is not 
an index of the child's resourcefulness and intelligence, but is a 
composite result produced by his intelligence and the training received 
in his other trials. If all conditions could be equalized for every 
trial for every subject; if the attitude of every subject were the 
same, allowing for differences in ability to attend, etc.; if the attitude 
of the examiner were the same in every trial for every subject, then 
the shortest trial might be the index. But it seems as if these factors 
are equalized most nearly in the first trial and a careful study of that 
trial is most important. 

In every examination the subject was told to see how quickly 
he could put the blocks back. The suggestion to hurry or do the 
test fast does not have much, if any, effect upon children under six 
years of age. Their movements are very deliberate and slow and 
there is no indication that the young child has the concepts of time 
and speed. With most children it is simply a matter of understanding 
the terms and the idea suggested. They are told many times a day 
to hurry, but they do not hurry. In the child of two to three years 
of age there is absolutely no response to the command to hurry. 
There may be some response from the child from three to six years 
of age, if the command is repeated urgently, but the response will be 
a quickening of the movements where the gain is of no advantage. 
Case 1, at the age of three years and six months, after much training 
with the formboard, when urged to hurry, will make quick move- 
ments of the hands after the block is selected and near the recess by 
slapping it down quickly, but she loses just as much time as ever in 



248 



THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. 



picking up the blocks and finding the recesses. Her speed has 
improved through practice, but not because of any understanding 
of what it means to do the test fast. The older child gets the concept 
very slowly, especially before he goes to school where he has experi- 
ences of tardiness and its consequences, urging to be prompt in 
response to signals, urging to read faster, to hurry up and down 
stairs with others who are hurrying, hastening in games, and the 
rush home at meal time under the spell of the ravenous appetite of 
early school days. In the case of a few children of six or seven years 
of age the only response to the suggestion to hurry was the making of 
swift movements similar to those described above. This is the first 
noticeable element of behavior in line with the developing concept 
of speed; swift movements after there is no longer need for thought, 
studied imageability, etc., but no speed in the analytic process. 
Children who do try to hurry make slower records. Often the 
number of errors is not due to lack of ability to perceive form, but 
to blurred and incomplete perception due to rapid work. 

To the second part of the first instructions, "Use both hands 
if you want to, " there is no response of any consequence until from 
eight to ten years of age. All of the younger subjects work with the 
preferred hand, at best simply making the other hand assist in 
removing wrongly placed blocks or in passing blocks to the other 
hand. It can be quite definitely concluded that if a child of six, 
seven, or eight, uses both hands in selecting and placing the blocks, 
he has good initiative, originality, and planfulness, and that in this 
case the formboard aids in selecting an individual of more than 
average ability. 

Two general classes of failures are found, the normal and the 
feebleminded, but this classification can hardly be based upon the 
fact of failure or success alone. As has already been said, the 
child over five years of age who fails with the formboard is very 
likely to be feebleminded, the child under five who fails may be 
feebleminded, but the failure alone does not prove that, for more 
children between the ages of three and five succeed than fail. The 
failure may be indicative of the lack of development of an ability 
or a complex of abilities. In one child we will have one who lacks 
and in another one in whom the ability has not yet developed, and 
each may show the same symptoms, so far as formboard performance 
is concerned. If thinking and mental abihty are dependent upon 
the functioning of the nervous system and particularly the brain 
centers and medullated fibres, it is possible that in a young child 
some of these centers are not yet developed enough to function 
adequately or the fibres are not yet medullated because of lack of 
the kind of experience necessary to develop them. Thus the dis- 



FAILURES WITH THE WITHER FORMBOARD. 249 

tinction arises as to whether a subject fails because of a congenital 
defect or because his experience has been such that his intellect is too 
small. His intelligence is affected by both. 

No failures are due to lack of vitality, health, control, coordina- 
tion, or dexterity, although performance is qualitatively affected by 
aU. If a child is poor enough in any of these abilities to fail he would 
not be submitted to any sort of test. Most failures are due to some 
sort of failure of attention and particularly distribution of attention 
and persistent concentration of attention. In the cases reported 
in this investigation these two kinds of failures include three-fifths 
of all. There is a vast difference between concentrated persistence 
and simple persistence. Case 15, the idio-imbecile, is a fine example 
of this. She persisted but could not concentrate. This is so closely 
associated with failure due to lack of analytic concentration of 
attention that the two cannot be separated. She could not give 
enough attention to analyze the task. The least distraction threw 
her off. She recognized the recesses corresponding to the blocks and 
associated them very well, but the least impulse was sufficient to 
induce her to take out one already correctly placed and try it else- 
where. Yet she stuck to it. 

Failure, therefore, means inability to give proper attention. 
This raises the old question, — what is attention? It is a state of 
consciousness in which some one object, or thought, occupies the 
center of consciousness to the relative exclusion of all other objects 
or thoughts. It is the focalization of consciousness in which experi- 
ence is used in judging. If experience is meager, judgment is poor, 
and the performance correspondingly poor. Hence distractibility 
is a prime cause of failure of attention; but it is not the only cause. 
The stolid, dull, lethargic child with low vitality, without vivacity, 
not alert enough to have his attention caught by distractions, will 
also fail because of inability to attend. Here it may be said that he 
cannot give proper attention to the task in hand for exactly the same 
reason that he cannot be distracted. He cannot attend to anything. 
There may be several reasons for this. First, he may be feeble- 
minded; the ceUs of the cortex may be undeveloped, the association 
pathways may not be made clear, or there may be lesions in the 
cortex, in the inner nuclei, or among the fibres leading to the cortex. 
Secondly, the subject may be so young that the cells of the cortex 
are relatively undeveloped and the association pathways are not 
yet established. By the time this has come about there is sufficient 
ability in coordination to succeed with the task. This makes possible 
a very definite line of distinction between the two general classes of 
failures in which the causes are apparently the same. The feeble- 
miiided child is very much like the very young normal child. 



250 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. 

In many cases failure seems due to lack of imageability or under- 
standing. However, if there is persistence enough, many children 
will succeed with poor imageability. Persistence in the trial and 
error method will bring success in spite of poor imageability. This 
persistence is indicative of some distribution of attention. It is 
reasonable that one may fail to understand the task because there is 
very poor form perception or imageabihty. There is a reciprocal 
relation between the abilities here. Although imagination is the 
most general and comprehensive of the powers of the mind, j'^et it is 
true that with poor power of attention, in any respect, there is poor 
imagination, and where there is poor imagination and distribution 
of attention, analytic and persistent concentration of attention are 
not possible. Distribution of attention may be defined as the ability 
to see the possibilities in a given situation; analytic concentration 
of attention may also be defined as the abihty to select out the impor- 
tant and significant details of the situation. Therefore lack of dis- 
tribution of attention is much more likely to produce failure, than 
lack of analytic concentration of attention or lack of imageability or 
associability. 

It is apparent, therefore, that failure with the formboard is 
primarily a failure in some way of attention. From the standpoint 
of attention there are three things most necessary for the satisfactory 
and ready completion of this test: distribution of attention, per- 
sistent concentration of attention, and analytic concentration of 
attention. If the range of attention is too limited, no one can 
perform this test. That is, if attention is too fixed there is a tendency 
to obsession, the task is not grasped and the possibilities are not seen. 
On the other hand, if distribution of attention goes so far as to make 
it too widely dispersed, the difficulty is quite similar and the task 
cannot be completed. The highly distractible subject is an illustra- 
tion of this. There is a middle ground, where there is a distribution 
of the attention sufficient to cover or grasp the possibilities, and yet 
where there is enough concentration upon the immediate part to 
complete it as an element of the whole. These things are observed 
in the behavior of the very young child. Both difficulties are likely 
to occur, the child may be easily attracted to other things and the 
next minute may be under the speU of his efforts to place a given 
block in the wrong recess. Where this is the case we have an emphasis 
on the fact that in the education of the child he must be held to any 
educational task by repeated encouragement and conunand, up to 
the point of fatigue or distraction due to misunderstanding of the 
command. 

A small range of attention may be due to lack of development, to 
congenital deficiency, or to injury. The range may be so small that 



FAILURES WITH THE WITHER FORMBOARD. 251 

comparison of forms, or of forms with recesses is impossible. This com- 
parison marks the use of a more intelligent process in the performance of 
the f ormboard test. The child goes beyond the trial and error method, 
beyond simple recognition, to a simple reasoning process. But it fol- 
lows immediately upon attentive observation of two or more objects 
with the question in mind as to which two are most alike. This, we 
note, depends upon range and distribution of attention and is the thing 
which so many young and deficient cliildren lack; hence the dependence 
upon trial and error, or the giving up to failure. In every case where 
there is such comparison and consequent judgment there is good distri- 
bution of attention and analytic concentration of attention. Pillsbury^ 
calls this 'judgment of evaluation or association.' This judgment of 
evaluation or association without actual perception marks a still 
higher process and hence signifies greater ability. If the child 
selects a block and says to himseK, ''Oh yes, I know where this goes, 
I remember seeing the right recess," he is making a judgment of 
evaluation on association. As judgment, then, is dependent upon 
the nature of attention, so inference, in its simplest form, may be 
said to be an association dependent upon the nature of attention. 
Inference is simple judgment, judgment is the selection of the essential 
element of a given situation with a comprehension of some of the 
possibilities. But such a consciousness of the situation and the 
selection are dependent upon sensation, and the consciousness of the 
sensation is dependent upon attention. In the performance of the 
formboard test there must be some consciousness of the situation 
and, of course, there is some selection, and these things depend upon 
the ability to give proper attention. This brings us to the point that 
while attention is most important in the performance of the test, 
attention itseK is dependent upon a complex of the other abilities, 
the lack of any one of which would not bring about failure. Image- 
ability and associability determine the fixation of attention, attention 
then determines what course specific imagination shall take and hence 
aids in determining the understanding of the task. Specific imagina- 
tion in turn depends upon memory, its trainability and retentiveness 
and the readiness of recall, in short upon the clarity of the mental 
image. It becomes apparent at once that ' ' the conditions of attention 
are as widespread as the conditions of consciousness."^ 

It has already been said that the essence of attention is the 
increase of the clearness of one idea or group of ideas at the expense 
of others. If all forms in the formboard are equally clear, attention 
is too dispersed; if none are analyzed, or if only one is observed, 
there is no clearness of the mental image and hence no clear idea 
dominates consciousness. It is impossible to measure the participa- 
tion of all of the mental processes in determining a state of attention, 



252 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. 

but much depends upon association in perception. Clear perception 
is fundamental. Some apperceptional background is also funda- 
mental, but this is dependent, in the first place, upon former clear 
perceptions and these upon certain motor adaptations and coordina- 
tions, which come about in response to some stimulus. The value of 
the formboard as a test of attention is that it gets down to the 
fundamentals of attention, for in practically every case the stimulus 
of the sharply defined bloclcs and recesses is so strong that there is 
adaptation of the sense organs and correlated movements of the 
organism and its parts. Only if there be defect in sense organs, or 
motor inability, extreme distractibility or stubbornness, in the 
otherwise normal child, will there be failure to respond. After the 
response, attention may be measured roughly by the accomplishment 
and the amount of stimulus necessary for distraction. If distraction 
comes early, there is little persistence of attention. Fluctuation of 
attention depends upon the duration of acts of attention, and this is 
largely due to the fatigue of the cortical cells. 

Again, the response that the examiner gets from the subject 
depends upon two sets of conditions. These two include all of what 
has already been said. This classification aids in keeping clear the 
two sides of the question of attention. Attention depends upon 
objective and subjective conditions; upon the nature of the task and 
its physical background or setting, and upon the nature of the mind 
of the subject at the time of presentation. Under objective conditions 
we have the summation effect of successive stimuli, those brought by 
the test itself and by the environment. This covers the matter of 
repetition of instructions, urging, even starting the performance, 
and all possible distractions. Under subjective conditions we include 
the mental state of the subject when the task is presented to him, and 
this will be determined by the nature of the objective conditions and 
by his past experience. The kind of attention given will depend more 
upon the latter than upon the former. In the instructions of the 
examiner, "I am going to take all these blocks out and put them up 

here , " the subject has an opportunity to picture himself doing it. 

A child with experience with blocks will do better because he has had 
some ideas which were similar to the one aroused. The mood of the 
child at the moment of the test, his attitude toward his world, his 
health tone, and his immediately preceding experience are determining 
factors in the subjective condition. The whole attitude toward the 
present task will be a complex determined by his apperceptional 
background. To some children it is an opportunity to play a game, 
to some it means a command to do hard work which they will be 
compelled to do. The child with a lack of manual and digital experi- 
ence win be sadly handicapped. We are inclined to say that the 




FAILURES WITH THE WITHER FORMBOARD. 253 

performance depends upon the interest the child takes in the task, 
but we are only saying again what has already been said. Interest 
is only the objective way of looking at the conditions of attention. 

This brings us to the point that attention goes back funda- 
mentally to the element of consciousness, sensation. Clarity of 
perception is due to sense acuity and imageability, the initial ability 
to have images. The stimulus which gets attention must be relatively 
intense, the conditions of the subject must be such that the proper 
motor adaptations and coordinations are made, and the appercep- 
tional background must contribute toward making the sensation 
pleasurable. This brings out the fact of the participation of mental 
processes other than sensation in perception. Perception is not the 
mere entrance of a group of sensations, but an arousal of old experience 
by a few newly entering sensations. The perception of the thing to 
be done is then the result of present sensation as interpreted in accord 
with past experience. Voluntary action is a problem of attention. 
This produces a syllogism: action is dependent upon sensation; 
attention controls the entrance and course of sensation and its 
consequent ideas; therefore attention controls action. 

The child who cries, who is shy, nervous, stubborn, excited or 
frightened, cannot give proper attention, for attention is very poor 
when feeling and emotion are strong. Most attention involves strain, 
and emotion involves attention to that which distracts from the task in 
hand. Emotion or feeling is attention to sensation. Emotion is not a 
matter of inattention but of strained attention, hence the futility of 
attempting to secure the solution of a problem, the making of a com- 
parison, or the passing of judgment, during the stress of emotion. 

The above brings us to the conclusion that "attention has an 
anatomical basis and that as a starting point for a nervous ex- 
planation of attention we must accept the hypothesis of psycho- 
physical parallelism.''^ With this in mind it appears, first, that the 
conditions of a state of attention at any given moment depend most 
largely upon apperceptional urge; and secondly, that successful per- 
formance of the formboard test depends upon knowledge of space 
relations acquired by the child through trial and error or through 
training. 

Bibliography. 

1. Young, Herman H. The Witmer Formboard. The Psychol. Clinic, 
1916, 10,93-111. 

2. Pillsbury, W. B. Attention. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1908. 
Pp. 173-174. 

3. Ibid. Pp. 234. 

For further reference to reports on investigations with the formboard, see H. 
H. Young, The Witmer Formboard, The Psychol. Clinic, 1916, 10, Pp. 110-111. 



«MHIIBI 



I 



Mn 




3 



■I 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



019 841 063 9 




